Lawmakers target EPA budget to rein in regulators

WASHINGTON, June 22, 2016 - Having
failed time after time to kill the Obama administration’s new air and water
rules, congressional Republicans are trying to hit the regulators in the
pocketbook. Both the House and the Senate are advancing fiscal 2017 spending
bills for the Environmental Protection Agency that would cut its budget for
implementing and enforcing regulations, including the Clean Water Act as well
as the Clean Power Plan, a key climate change initiative that will force
electric utilities to reduce carbon emissions.

“I believe
it is more important to provide resources to programs that yield tangible
results in improving the environment instead of funding more lawyers and
bureaucrats to draft rules of questionable legality and dubious environmental
benefit,” said Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, who
chairs the Senate Interior-Environment Appropriations Subcommittee.

Rep. Shelley Moore Capito, R-W.Va., said the EPA cut
softened her concern that the bill didn't have a rider blocking the carbon
limits from being implemented.

The Senate’s Interior-Environment
spending bill would cut EPA’s spending on “clean air and climate programs” to
$245 million in fiscal 2017, down $27 million from the current year. The budget
for “water quality” programs would be cut by $19 million to $191 million. The
House bill would cut EPA’s regulatory programs by a total of $43 million,
including a $25 million reduction in air and climate programs.

The bills, which also fund the
Interior Department, also seek to curb the Fish and Wildlife Service’s work on
endangered species listings.

Chris Gallegos, a spokesman for the
Senate Appropriations Committee, said the EPA cuts are focused on programs or
regulations that had “been either stayed by the courts or sources of serious
concern among members.” Both the carbon regulations as well as the “waters of
the United States” (WOTUS) rule that redefines what wetlands, ditches and
streams are regulated by the Clean Water Act are under court stays.

The top Democrat on the Senate
Appropriations Committee, Barbara Mikulski of Maryland, says Republicans are
trying to enact “deep cuts for core
environmental and public health priorities.”

But such budget cuts may have limited
impact on specific regulations if they aren’t accompanied by spending
prohibitions. The EPA can simply prioritize spending on the rules it considers
the most important. The administration has left little doubt that its carbon
regulations, for example, fit that description.

“As long as
EPA is consistent with the direction provided by the courts on the Clean Power
Plan and the ‘waters of the United States,’ EPA can set priorities of how they
would spend within those categories” specified
by the appropriators, said Arvin Ganesan, a former deputy chief of staff for
policy at EPA. “After all, ‘water quality protection’ and ‘clean air and
climate’ extend well beyond the WOTUS rule and the Clean Power Plan.”

The House bill contains riders that
would prevent EPA from implementing both the Clean Power Plan and the WOTUS
rules should the courts lift their stays on them. The Senate bill would block
only WOTUS. Appropriators attached similar riders to the fiscal 2016 bills but
they were dropped from the final omnibus spending package amid strong
resistance from the White House. Standalone efforts to kill the rules also have
failed.

EPA continues work on actions related
to the Clean Power Plan. The agency last week proposed a Clean Energy Incentive
Program, which is designed to help states meet their carbon-reduction targets
by making early investments in renewable energy. The agency also plans to
finalize sometime this summer model rules for trading carbon emission credits.

Don Parrish, senior director of
regulatory relations for the American Farm Bureau Federation, says the WOTUS
riders serve to show the courts that a majority in Congress oppose that rule
and help “paint a narrative that the agency has overreached.”

He says the spending cuts in the bills
send a message to EPA: “The agency
should understand that if they want support for different types of proposals,
they need to work with the regulated community, and they’re not.”

Here is a look at other provisions in
the House and Senate bills:

·Pesticide
usage: The House bill would bar the EPA
from allowing “designated representatives” of farm workers to demand records
from farms on pesticide usage. Farm groups argue that activists could claim
status as designated representatives to find out what chemicals farmers are
using. According to a letter sent to the House Appropriations Committee in
March, growers “have no way of authenticating such designations” and may be
legally liable even when the designations are fraudulent.

·BLM planning
rule: An amendment to the House bill would
require the Bureau of Land Management to provide additional time for public
comment on a proposed land management initiative, called “Planning 2.0.” The
initiative would increase public involvement in development of resource
management plans. In comments to BLM, a coalition of groups representing cattle
and sheep producers has complained that the rule would reorient land use plans
according to “short-term political expediency and non-stakeholder involvement.”
The groups also say that BLM management would no longer have to align with
state and local planning. The Senate bill contains report language urging BLM
to work with states and local government representatives “to address their
concerns with the proposed rule.”

·Lesser
Prairie Chicken: Both bills contain language to block
the Fish and Wildlife Service from re-listing the bird under the Endangered
Species Act.

·Sage grouse: The House Appropriations Committee approved an amendment,
29-20, by Rep. Mark Amodei, R-Nev., that would bar Interior from implementing federal land use policies that differ from a state’s
approved sage-grouse management plan. The amendment also would prevent the Fish
and Wildlife Service from reviewing the status of the greater sage grouse.

·Gray wolves: Both bills would require the administration to move
forward with de-listing gray wolf populations in Wyoming and the Great Lakes
region.

This week’s guest on Open Mic is Ken Dallmier, President and COO of Clarkson Grain Company. While the global grain business is dominated by supply, demand and now trade wars, this Illinois-based company functions under a customer-focused mindset. Dallmier says this generation of consumer demand is dominated by a different set of social values leading to questions over the way food is produced and the prices they’re willing to pay. Sustainability, organic and non-GMO are providing farmers an income stream isolated from traditional market forces.

Department of Transportation Secretary Elaine Chao and Environmental Protection Agency Acting Administrator of the Andrew Wheeler recently announced their intent to reassess and correct the Corporate Average Fuel Economy standards.

The world of agriculture extends beyond what’s growing in your field or living in your barn, and here at Agri-Pulse, we understand that. We make it our duty to inform you of the most up-to-date agricultural and rural policy decisions being made in Washington D.C. and examine how they will affect you – the farmer, the lobbyist, the government employee, the educator, the consultant and the concerned citizen.